Note: I am reposting entries I made over at The Opine Editorials. This one is from mid-2011...
Under the headline of "How traditional a family?", Michael McGough blogged at LATimes.com...
Yes, that silly Santorum thinks that raising children actually means being present to parent, rather than letting hired help be the primary caretakers. Silly him! What's next? Expecting employees to actually work for their paychecks?
I don't know, I agree with the idea that is generally preferable that mothers do the early primary caretaking, but maybe it is because my breasts did not inflate with milk. Maybe it is different for other men? Seriously, there are many ways women are, literally, naturally more suited - everything from bone structure to hearing to smell to hormones and so many more. You don't have to be a social conservative to hold such an idea, though when you realize that the social Left's insistence that there's no difference between mothers and fathers is a lie that denies such an obvious reality, it may lead you to social conservatism.
Those who fight against idealizing the traditional family play dumb or act like we can't define a "traditional family" or that only a minority of families were what we call traditional at any given time in history.
A family consists of people who are related by marriage, adoption, or birth. "Traditional family" means a mother, married to a father, living together with their children and raising their children. If there are no children, we already have a word that covers the husband and wife: marriage. Having grandparents or aunts or uncles in the home as well should never be equated with not having both the mother and father in the home, or having adulterous sex partners in the home, whatever name you want to put on that arrangement.
That's right, two men raising a child, lovers or not, do not make a traditional family. It doesn’t necessarily make them bad; it might be the best situation possible at that time for those children (for example... the mother, the wife of one of the men died, and his unmarried brother or widowed father moved in to help with the kids). A mother and daughter raising the daughter's kids (perhaps she's a war widow) is not traditional, but it might be the best thing possible given the circumstances.
It is not the best thing possible, nor should it be encouraged, for two male or two female lovers, even if they have a license from one of those wacky handful of states that says they're married, to CHOOSE to adopt a baby that a bride+groom couple could have adopted, or to use third-party reproduction to bring a child into the situation. It is not the best thing possible for an unmarried man or woman to use a surrogate mother or donated sperm, respectively, to intentionally bring a child into a situation where that child will not have a bride+groom parent set. It is not good to make and raise babies out of wedlock through casual or long-term-relationship sex, even if shacking up with your sex partner. Pretending otherwise, including refusing to use the term "traditional family", does not make those situations any better.
A "father" is not someone who was born with XX chromosomal makeup and a vagina who is now pretending to be a man. A "mother" is not someone who was born with XY chromosomal makeup and a penis who is now pretending to be a woman.
This does not mean we want to hurt anyone. On the contrary, we want as many people as possible to be raised in a stable home by an inclusive parental set. We want children, regardless of their sexual orientation, to have both a mother and a father. We want everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, to live in a culture where more people were raised by a married mother and father because it correlates to positive indicators.
Try doing a mental exercise. Would you rather be surrounded by coworkers, friends, neighbors, and fellow pedestrians... would you rather have a partner... who were raised by a married mother and father, or do you think it would be better if they were all raised without a father, or without a mother, or if they had to endure a divorce or multiple divorces when they were growing up?
ER PAC | June 08, 2011 at 12:43 PM:
Of course fathers can raise children, but would he say that his son didn't miss out on anything, having lost his mother at age 4? His son is only 17. This will have an impact on how he relates to women as an adult. If his son understands that, it will help him mitigate for the loss. In some families, it is better for the father to be the primary caretaker, but that goes against the general reality for a number of reasons.
Ironman Carmichael | June 08, 2011 at 05:08 PM:
Would this person have preferred being raised in a family like those or a family like the ones portrayed in some of today's sitcoms? It is one thing to get laughs from watching the fictional shows, it would be quite another to live in a family that is actually like them.
Of course not, but there can be a model we hold as ideal and for which we strive.
Mark L Holland | June 09, 2011 at 04:19 AM:
Christianity's history... you mean like…
inspiring the U.S. Constitution
ending slavery in many many places around the world
ending human sacrifice
elevating the status of women, the disabled, and children
inspiring civil rights movements and support
inspiring countless charities and nonprofits
building major leading universities
inspiring twelve step programs
reforming criminals
inspiring the scientific method
massive contributions/inspirations in the arts?
Yeah, what a horrible track record!
Under the headline of "How traditional a family?", Michael McGough blogged at LATimes.com...
When conservative politicians talk about the "traditional family," it's usually by way of denouncing same-sex marriage. But former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (though no supporter of marriage equality) uses the concept for another purpose: to critique contemporary child-rearing practices.
In 2005, Santorum was criticized for suggesting in his book "It Takes a Family" that working women should give up their jobs and stay at home with the kids.
Actually, the offending passage was gender-neutral: "In too many families with young children both parents are working when, if they took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do."
Yes, that silly Santorum thinks that raising children actually means being present to parent, rather than letting hired help be the primary caretakers. Silly him! What's next? Expecting employees to actually work for their paychecks?
The idea that mothers are superior caregivers for young children is politically incorrect these days, but it's widely held by the social conservatives to whom Santorum appeals.
I don't know, I agree with the idea that is generally preferable that mothers do the early primary caretaking, but maybe it is because my breasts did not inflate with milk. Maybe it is different for other men? Seriously, there are many ways women are, literally, naturally more suited - everything from bone structure to hearing to smell to hormones and so many more. You don't have to be a social conservative to hold such an idea, though when you realize that the social Left's insistence that there's no difference between mothers and fathers is a lie that denies such an obvious reality, it may lead you to social conservatism.
Those who fight against idealizing the traditional family play dumb or act like we can't define a "traditional family" or that only a minority of families were what we call traditional at any given time in history.
A family consists of people who are related by marriage, adoption, or birth. "Traditional family" means a mother, married to a father, living together with their children and raising their children. If there are no children, we already have a word that covers the husband and wife: marriage. Having grandparents or aunts or uncles in the home as well should never be equated with not having both the mother and father in the home, or having adulterous sex partners in the home, whatever name you want to put on that arrangement.
That's right, two men raising a child, lovers or not, do not make a traditional family. It doesn’t necessarily make them bad; it might be the best situation possible at that time for those children (for example... the mother, the wife of one of the men died, and his unmarried brother or widowed father moved in to help with the kids). A mother and daughter raising the daughter's kids (perhaps she's a war widow) is not traditional, but it might be the best thing possible given the circumstances.
It is not the best thing possible, nor should it be encouraged, for two male or two female lovers, even if they have a license from one of those wacky handful of states that says they're married, to CHOOSE to adopt a baby that a bride+groom couple could have adopted, or to use third-party reproduction to bring a child into the situation. It is not the best thing possible for an unmarried man or woman to use a surrogate mother or donated sperm, respectively, to intentionally bring a child into a situation where that child will not have a bride+groom parent set. It is not good to make and raise babies out of wedlock through casual or long-term-relationship sex, even if shacking up with your sex partner. Pretending otherwise, including refusing to use the term "traditional family", does not make those situations any better.
A "father" is not someone who was born with XX chromosomal makeup and a vagina who is now pretending to be a man. A "mother" is not someone who was born with XY chromosomal makeup and a penis who is now pretending to be a woman.
This does not mean we want to hurt anyone. On the contrary, we want as many people as possible to be raised in a stable home by an inclusive parental set. We want children, regardless of their sexual orientation, to have both a mother and a father. We want everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, to live in a culture where more people were raised by a married mother and father because it correlates to positive indicators.
Try doing a mental exercise. Would you rather be surrounded by coworkers, friends, neighbors, and fellow pedestrians... would you rather have a partner... who were raised by a married mother and father, or do you think it would be better if they were all raised without a father, or without a mother, or if they had to endure a divorce or multiple divorces when they were growing up?
ER PAC | June 08, 2011 at 12:43 PM:
My wife passed away when our son was 4 years old, and I never remarried. Our son is now 17. He is an independent thinker who is well on his way to becoming a good and honest man. Yes, fathers can raise children.
Of course fathers can raise children, but would he say that his son didn't miss out on anything, having lost his mother at age 4? His son is only 17. This will have an impact on how he relates to women as an adult. If his son understands that, it will help him mitigate for the loss. In some families, it is better for the father to be the primary caretaker, but that goes against the general reality for a number of reasons.
Ironman Carmichael | June 08, 2011 at 05:08 PM:
Oh, these people who were brought up on "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Father Knows Best" and believed they were what we now call reality shows!
Would this person have preferred being raised in a family like those or a family like the ones portrayed in some of today's sitcoms? It is one thing to get laughs from watching the fictional shows, it would be quite another to live in a family that is actually like them.
There is no one-size-fits-all model for the family.
Of course not, but there can be a model we hold as ideal and for which we strive.
Mark L Holland | June 09, 2011 at 04:19 AM:
When Conservatives talk of family values, they are really talking about Christian family values. And based upon Christianity’s history I am not sure that Christian family values are something that should be aspired to.
Christianity's history... you mean like…
inspiring the U.S. Constitution
ending slavery in many many places around the world
ending human sacrifice
elevating the status of women, the disabled, and children
inspiring civil rights movements and support
inspiring countless charities and nonprofits
building major leading universities
inspiring twelve step programs
reforming criminals
inspiring the scientific method
massive contributions/inspirations in the arts?
Yeah, what a horrible track record!
Or, maybe families can decide on their own who can and should spend what kind of time at home with the kids ... they may not need your two cents regarding which gender might be the superior parent!
ReplyDeleteI was responding to people who play dumb about the term "traditional family", not saying that only the two biological parents should be around the children.
DeleteI see. Point take.
DeleteFYI, it rubs me the wrong way when people play dumb about the term "gay couple".